Except that the scenario you've described is not collateral damage. According to the U.S. Air Force: "Broadly defined, collateral damage is unintentional damag

Except that the scenario you've described is not collateral damage. According to the U.S. Air Force: "Broadly defined, collateral damage is unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment or personnel occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities." Source: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afpam14-210/part20.htm#page180 http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afpam14-210/part20.htm#pa... If a Predator blows up a car and the family traveling inside it because some intelligence analyst believes it's full of terrorists, that is killing, pure and simple. There's no "collateral" here. If during the same strike, another car with another family is accidently destroyed by the blast, that is, indeed, collateral damage. To summarize, if you destroy what you're targeting, there's no collateral damage. If you destroy something other than what you're targeting, then there's collateral damage. Collateral damage is unintended killing, but not all unintended killing is collateral damage. Hence, your argument is fallacious.